Kata Critique

[ShotoNoob]

Kata has always been a problematic portion of the traditional martial arts curriculum. For both practitioners and for those fighting stylists outside traditional martial arts. The later largely critical and unsupportive.

Accessing the value of traditional martial arts is very challenging and not easy to see or understand. These sophisticated concepts or principles I've talked about are typically not well explained or accordingly trained properly. Hence the dissatisfaction of many with traditional martial arts experience.

Interestingly enough, the kung fu practitioners in my area are the most accepting group of martial arts stylists who come to understand the importance of kata.

I think the change made by the Shotokan style in Japan is the most pragmatic for most practitioners of traditional martial arts, because a specific kumite component including free sparring & kumite competition was placed in the curriculum. With specific kumite training, many if not all of the concerns voiced here to me about kata, can then be addressed directly through the kumite training.

 

[Yokozuna514]

The chamber or hikete as you termed it, this has been another ongoing debate.

Often the simplest answer is the correct one. Hikete in kata as we use it in Kyokushin is to bring back the hip which allows us to bring our body into the punch instead of using just mass of the arms to punch. It is akin to standing in place punching vs moving forward and punching. The punch moving forward SHOULD be a more powerful strike in comparison, all things created equal.

My post line about the meaning or purpose of Kiai, was meant to illustrate that limitation in thinking. You can go on you tube right know and find black belts/ instructors of karate explaining the kiai is to build confidence. And it well may be a confidence builder, create confidence. The kiai "yell" may in fact startle or unsettled one's opponent. That is a legitimate occurrence, I'm sure

Sadly, I will have to agree with you. There are too many people on youtube explaining things that SEEM correct but have no real basis in practicality. THAT is what casts a lot of shade on TMA. Kiai may build confidence. It may startle your opponent. However, kiai is more like a focal point to release your breath (and tighten all the muscles) at the point of impact. In Kyokushin we can kiai when we get hit or when we hit. The function is the same. We exhale quickly to tighten our muscles (clearing the air from our lungs) and either brace for an impact or to deliver a significant strike Boxers do the same when they breath out sharply.

There is a simple test to see the difference. Try punching holding your breath or while inhaling. It should be very different than when you punch exhaling. That is how I see the function of a 'kiai'.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Kata are not meant for practicing exact movements, disagree. I think we are confusing actual application where we may be forced out of perfect form.

I don't have time to reply to the whole post, but this sentence gets to the core of one of my points. "Perfect form" does not exist absent the opposite side. A "perfect punch" without a target to strike is different from a "perfect punch" to even a static target. The difference is far more extreme for grappling and even kicks. So, what we might refer to as "perfect form" in a kata is imperfect as soon as you add the other side, even if that other side is static. The easiest way to see this is to look at a basic hip throw. The ideal, perfect version of this cannot be done properly without the weight and counter-balance of someone to throw. And I cannot get close to the proper movement without a partner, unless I shift to create my own counter-balance. So, if that technique is in a kata, it cannot be the proper movement for the actual throw. Even the Classical versions of grappling techniques (the forms) can only be approximations of a proper throw, if they start from a static position (which the nearly always do). So, the form can only focus on principles, and can present the ideal place to practice and examine certain principles, but the actual technique will differ in substantial ways when removed from the form. Since the form isn't the purpose, the version required for the form can't really be the ideal version of the technique, in my opinion.

That's all from the standpoint of someone who learned a fairly traditional Japanese (primarily) grappling art. I suspect there's a difference in approach from what you've learned. That creates a different viewpoint.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I don't have time to reply to the whole post, but this sentence gets to the core of one of my points. "Perfect form" does not exist absent the opposite side. A "perfect punch" without a target to strike is different from a "perfect punch" to even a static target. The difference is far more extreme for grappling and even kicks. So, what we might refer to as "perfect form" in a kata is imperfect as soon as you add the other side, even if that other side is static. The easiest way to see this is to look at a basic hip throw. The ideal, perfect version of this cannot be done properly without the weight and counter-balance of someone to throw. And I cannot get close to the proper movement without a partner, unless I shift to create my own counter-balance. So, if that technique is in a kata, it cannot be the proper movement for the actual throw. Even the Classical versions of grappling techniques (the forms) can only be approximations of a proper throw, if they start from a static position (which the nearly always do). So, the form can only focus on principles, and can present the ideal place to practice and examine certain principles, but the actual technique will differ in substantial ways when removed from the form. Since the form isn't the purpose, the version required for the form can't really be the ideal version of the technique, in my opinion.

That's all from the standpoint of someone who learned a fairly traditional Japanese (primarily) grappling art. I suspect there's a difference in approach from what you've learned. That creates a different viewpoint.

I've got to go too. We have common ground. There's always some semantical loss typing text into a forum.

Also some of our divide can only really be handled in person demonstration. We are addressing the same issue in application with a differing approach, and this is problematic to do over the internet.

To be brief, I agree with the whole concept of pressure testing and in the value of actual sparring or fighting. My emphasis though is on kata.

Get back later.

 

[Yokozuna514]

"Perfect form" does not exist absent the opposite side.

I'm sorry but this is not a correct. Kata is the search for the perfect movements or at least it is from a karate perspective. We don't train kata to 'consider' the opposite side. Bunkai is what we use to analyze the movements and attempt consider an opposite side (in some instances) but this is definitely not the the job for kata, in my book.

We also train kata to hone the 'perfect punch' but it is in the sense of gross concepts. Different kata teach different punches and it allows students to follow a pattern of movement to help them understand not only the names of the punches but the sequence that should be followed to make a punch successful (the coordination of the punch). It's like a shorthand an instructor can give that will tell students quickly and efficiently, what series of movements we are going to be working on.

Kyokushin is not typically known for being kata centred but we practice katas regularly at our dojo. Our dojo also produces a fair number of good semi-knockdown and knockdown fighters (which Kyokushin is more known for) but we prefer to believe that our karate is stronger (and more long term sustainable) if we build the foundation with the three K's (kata, kihon and kumite).

 

[ShotoNoob]

Often the simplest answer is the correct one. Hikete in kata as we use it in Kyokushin is to bring back the hip which allows us to bring our body into the punch instead of using just mass of the arms to punch. It is akin to standing in place punching vs moving forward and punching. The punch moving forward SHOULD be a more powerful strike in comparison, all things created equal.

Concurring I am. Arm punching is one of the biggest sins of MMA striker. And crummy karate kumite. Although boxing has differences, if one reviews the proper body mechanics for a boxing punch, its' quite intricate and coordinated with the body, always

Sadly, I will have to agree with you. There are too many people on youtube explaining things that SEEM correct but have no real basis in practicality. THAT is what casts a lot of shade on TMA. Kiai may build confidence. It may startle your opponent. However, kiai is more like a focal point to release your breath (and tighten all the muscles) at the point of impact. In Kyokushin we can kiai when we get hit or when we hit. The function is the same. We exhale quickly to tighten our muscles (clearing the air from our lungs) and either brace for an impact or to deliver a significant strike Boxers do the same when they breath out sharply.

I've been fortnate in my area. Most of the karate instructors are good, There's a lot many don't know and theres' a lot they do know. Always heading in the direction by-in-large which in turns has pointed me in the right direction, as a general rule.

There is a simple test to see the difference. Try punching holding your breath or while inhaling. It should be very different than when you punch exhaling. That is how I see the function of a 'kiai'.

I haven't typically heard of karate practitioner kiai'ing for defensive impact. Sounds okay, in principle. Kyo as we all know ranks perhaps among 1st for being "outgoing."

The kiai has more than a physical muscular action, although the base explanation is just as you say. A reading of the manuals, study of the curriculum will bear out the kiai is more than physical.

What makes karate confusing to learn is that the manuals and curriculum's have different ways of expressing karate principles, different emphasis to get at some of the more intangible concepts, the metaphysical. As well as voluminous terminology & technical detail.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I
Kyokushin is not typically known for being kata centred but we practice katas regularly at our dojo. Our dojo also produces a fair number of good semi-knockdown and knockdown fighters (which Kyokushin is more known for) but we prefer to believe that our karate is stronger (and more long term sustainable) if we build the foundation with the three K's (kata, kihon and kumite).

And this is where Shotokan ended up coming out - the 3 K's. The brilliance in that was it made karate trained more rounded & practical for the masses. Kept the reality testing element front & center. Made traditional karate's appeal broad.

It is definitely a minority who want to march through kata all day long. The variety in training regiment helps the karate practitioner concentrate better in the total skills learning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm sorry but this is not a correct. Kata is the search for the perfect movements or at least it is from a karate perspective. We don't train kata to 'consider' the opposite side. Bunkai is what we use to analyze the movements and attempt consider an opposite side (in some instances) but this is definitely not the the job for kata, in my book.

We also train kata to hone the 'perfect punch' but it is in the sense of gross concepts. Different kata teach different punches and it allows students to follow a pattern of movement to help them understand not only the names of the punches but the sequence that should be followed to make a punch successful (the coordination of the punch). It's like a shorthand an instructor can give that will tell students quickly and efficiently, what series of movements we are going to be working on.

Kyokushin is not typically known for being kata centred but we practice katas regularly at our dojo. Our dojo also produces a fair number of good semi-knockdown and knockdown fighters (which Kyokushin is more known for) but we prefer to believe that our karate is stronger (and more long term sustainable) if we build the foundation with the three K's (kata, kihon and kumite).

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I'm starting from the premise that the objective - the physical purpose of training - is the application of technique in some context. If I'm trying to develop my punch for any actual use, the one found in any form will always be at best an approximation, because it lacks the ability to finish against a target. That changes body mechanics in ways that can be subtle (except at the end of the punch), but matter. The only way in which I can imagine the punch in a kata being the ideal is if my purpose is to develop my skill at kata. And that's not actually martial training at that point.

 

[Yokozuna514]

I haven't typically heard of karate practitioner kiai'ing for defensive impact. Sounds okay, in principle. Kyo as we all know ranks perhaps among 1st for being "outgoing."

The kiai has more than a physical muscular action, although the base explanation is just as you say. A reading of the manuals, study of the curriculum will bear out the kiai is more than physical.

Not sure what you mean by 'outgoing'. We use it defensively as a way to clear the lungs quickly and tighten the abdomen.

I don't know for certain if the 'kiai' is more than physical muscular action. I have never seen any evidence to say it does anything more than clear the lungs of air and tighten muscles to focus power. I start to join the crowd of skeptics when I hear anyone saying that it does anything more than than the physical nature of the action. If that was true, I think we would see it borne out in other MA.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I'm starting from the premise that the objective - the physical purpose of training - is the application of technique in some context. If I'm trying to develop my punch for any actual use, the one found in any form will always be at best an approximation, because it lacks the ability to finish against a target. That changes body mechanics in ways that can be subtle (except at the end of the punch), but matter. The only way in which I can imagine the punch in a kata being the ideal is if my purpose is to develop my skill at kata. And that's not actually martial training at that point.

Not to be argumentative but I think your point was clear. I just don't think we agree on the premise. Punching in kata will not teach you to punch in the cage. Continuous free flow fighting is very different from kata however kata can teach the sequence of events that have to occur for you to have a successful punch. It is up to the practitioner to take the knowledge that can be gained through the practice of kata and apply it to their kumite. Kata is a tool, nothing more. How you use that tool will demonstrate if you are a craftsman or a DIYer.

 

[Yokozuna514]

And this is where Shotokan ended up coming out - the 3 K's. The brilliance in that was it made karate trained more rounded & practical for the masses. Kept the reality testing element front & center. Made traditional karate's appeal broad.

I think this is really debatable. Karate in general is no longer as popular as MMA. MMA is concerned with training and concepts that are practical in a sport setting. The truth of the technique can be found in if it works on an actual non-compliant opponent. TMA has gotten a bad rap because there is very little auditing in this regard. The rampant growth of McDojo's is also does not help. Finally, we ourselves can add to this issue if we don't look at what we do from a pragmatic standpoint and stop propagating esoteric concepts that have no basis in practicality.

.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not to be argumentative but I think your point was clear. I just don't think we agree on the premise. Punching in kata will not teach you to punch in the cage. Continuous free flow fighting is very different from kata however kata can teach the sequence of events that have to occur for you to have a successful punch. It is up to the practitioner to take the knowledge that can be gained through the practice of kata and apply it to their kumite. Kata is a tool, nothing more. How you use that tool will demonstrate if you are a craftsman or a DIYer.

None of that is contrary to my point, so we may simply be talking at cross purposes. My original point (in the post you quoted, the part I thought you were replying to) was that kata isn't the ideal version of a technique, because it has to make accommodations for the lack of a target/partner. I've had a similar discussion with folks within my own art about the limitations of Classical form, because ours are from a static start, which also requires accommodations that take us away from ideal technique.

 

[Yokozuna514]

kata isn't the ideal version of a technique

Ok, this is where we differ. Kata is the search for doing the ideal of the technique. If we are talking about punching, kata will teach you the level of punch, the name of the punch and the sequence to use to perform the punch properly. Kata allows you to practice the sequence without the fear of hurting someone or yourself.

Adding a target or a partner changes the tool so in a sense it is no longer doing kata in the classical sense. If becomes something else. I've introduced pads at the end of some kata sequences to illustrate a point when dealing with a student who is not using the proper sequence (eg: punching before they move). The reaction of the pad (and the student) usually illustrates the difference between doing the technique properly and doing it improperly but it is not practical to do this over a large class.

Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say 'ideal' technique from the perspective of your art ?

 

[pgsmith]

I like all of it except the last part. I don’t see dancing as contrary to depth of development, even if the dancing is formed from what used to be a martial practice. So I don’t think the performance art aspect undermines the rest.

I agree. The Araki Mujinsai ryu is a koryu sword school that's been in existence for hundreds of years. They also practice sword dancing, called kenbu. Since the school has been passed down for quite a long time without dying out, it doesn't seem to have undermined their sword arts any. There are other sword schools that also do kenbu, so it isn't a lone instance.

Right. Kata is not a "word." It's a concept. The definition as pattern or form is a literal one. Begs what form or pattern meaning. A physical tracing? You use kata your way. So what is a "pattern" descibe? Specifically?

To you and your practice only. So many westerners insist on trying to apply narrow definitions onto Japanese concepts, and it just doesn't work that way. Kata is very much a word and, like most Japanese words, can vary in definition depending upon where and by whom it is used. So, what you say may be perfectly valid within your training. That doesn't make it so within the context of someone else's training.

Ok, this is where we differ. Kata is the search for doing the ideal of the technique. If we are talking about punching, kata will teach you the level of punch, the name of the punch and the sequence to use to perform the punch properly. Kata allows you to practice the sequence without the fear of hurting someone or yourself.

To you and your practice only. Please see the response above this one so I don't have to repeat the entire thing.

 

[Yokozuna514]

To you and your practice only.

So your point is that everyone’s point is valid to them ? Ok, thanks.

 

[pgsmith]

So your point is that everyone’s point is valid to them ? Ok, thanks.

Truly fantastic reading comprehension there!
My point is you shouldn't be trying to tell other people what something should mean to them, you can only tell them what it means to you. However, you are entitled to your opinions, as wrong as they may be.

Carry on.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Truly fantastic reading comprehension there!
My point is you shouldn't be trying to tell other people what something should mean to them, you can only tell them what it means to you. However, you are entitled to your opinions, as wrong as they may be.

Carry on.

Well we agree here. Thanks, pot.

Sincerely,
The kettle

 

[ShotoNoob]

To you and your practice only. So many westerners insist on trying to apply narrow definitions onto Japanese concepts, and it just doesn't work that way. Kata is very much a word and, like most Japanese words, can vary in definition depending upon where and by whom it is used. So, what you say may be perfectly valid within your training. That doesn't make it so within the context of someone else's training.

I'd like to add that the Japanese do a terrific job at representing traditional karate and what it can achieve, to the world. Westerners, however, notably Europeans rank among the top, best kumite competitors throughout the world. So though the Japanese heavily promote their brand or image as traditional karate's representative, anyone can achieve those standards & excel.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok, this is where we differ. Kata is the search for doing the ideal of the technique. If we are talking about punching, kata will teach you the level of punch, the name of the punch and the sequence to use to perform the punch properly. Kata allows you to practice the sequence without the fear of hurting someone or yourself.

Adding a target or a partner changes the tool so in a sense it is no longer doing kata in the classical sense. If becomes something else. I've introduced pads at the end of some kata sequences to illustrate a point when dealing with a student who is not using the proper sequence (eg: punching before they move). The reaction of the pad (and the student) usually illustrates the difference between doing the technique properly and doing it improperly but it is not practical to do this over a large class.

Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say 'ideal' technique from the perspective of your art ?

My concept of ideal isn't limited to my art. If we are learning to punch, we are learning to deliver power to a target. There are some fundamental differences when the target isn't present. You are correct that adding a target makes it no longer "kata", and that's part of what I'm getting at. Kata can help develop ideal technique, but the technique in the kata cannot be the ideal version, because it has to be altered for that lack of target. If we were to try to develop an ideal punch to aspire to, we'd have to use a target. It might be a 25% punch (which solves the issue of potential injury), but the target being present allows us to fully express all the mechanics involved in delivering power to a target.

None of this is saying there's a flaw in kata - it's just an inherent limitation in the practice.

 

[dvcochran]

I think this is true, though only to a point. I can tell if a person is balanced and in control. I can tell if they're focusing well. But I can't judge their stances, because they aren't the stances I studied. I might not like the stance, but if it's the correct stance for that style, well, then it's correct and I won't know it. And there are many kata I've seen where I didn't like entire segments of the kata - probably because I had no idea what the point of the kata was. The same goes for some methods and styles of movement.

So, if I were judging kata, I'd only be able to judge on things like movement, flow (and even that's tricky, since some styles are more staccato by nature), balance, and control. So a good kata won't be terribly different from a great kata in my scoring, unless the great kata is changed to show off more balance and control, which starts to change the kata. So now the kata has been altered to appeal more to me (because I don't understand it), getting further from its original training purpose.

Mind you, I'm actually okay with that, so long as we agree it's becoming a performance art, rather than a training tool. I actually enjoy watching a good "flash" kata.

Performance art from who's perspective, yours? The competitor may have a completely different viewpoint. I have worked out in every TKD system I am aware of state side. It is remarkable how different, and in common most are. I find this true of the other style schools I have worked out at. A lot of my experience with specific styles is limited, training while traveling for work. But, for the most part, there are commonalities across styles. Even in TKD some schools kick high and some schools kick really high. Emphasis to the point that I sometimes ask why? Then I have to step back and try to find the "why" in other things they are doing and usually find there is some method to their madness. Typically, the people being pushed to the extremes, in kicks for example, are the ones with some naturally ability to do really high kicks. Usually this is done as a way to motivate and keep a person engaged and involved. If it is never taught where/how/when/why to kick (or punch or whatever) then the school or instructor(s) are doing a dis-service.
So when I judge a form or style I am not intimate with I try to evaluate the effectiveness of individual moves, not in a preconceived idea of how the move should be done but whether it would work. Then you start adding in the fundamentals like balance and timing, etc...

And you have a lot of company. I'm among a minority for sure.


Kata alone can make one a superior fighter. Not practical for everyone. Is limited by no feed back of pressure testing. Having an actual opponent to train against / with.

Interesting enough in my area, the style(s) those that most often agree with me are the kung fu stylists. And these are the ones I as a group can't defeat in sparring. Instructor wise, the better students. To make a point, one kung fu instructor stated that one of his cohorts spend all of his time practicing one form... and go it down pat. Cleaned up at tournaments time after time. I believe him based upon what I've have witnessed.

We hold common ground here. Yet you will see karate instructors state time after time that the kiai's objectives are to give yourself confidence. To startle the opponent, the later I have seen happen. Only an ancillary impact in my book. These instructors THINK they have the answer. I looked to the teachings of the masters... across karate curriculum's including outside my style to help educate myself.




This is what we have to figure out. our karate job.



So if the chambering isn't necessary, why does Shiina do so? For fun. 'Cause her coach said so? Boxer's Muay Thai are reputed to hit harder, with more physical force than karate. Is karate trying to do that? Is karate trying to maximize physical force? Does karate physical form generate from the same kind of body mechanics boxing and Muay Thai employ? Does karate draw upon different body mechanics on certain ways? Why?



I saw that coming. So there is our divide. And it's a common, perpetual one. We see this with the sporting mentality of MMA. Karate has low, fixed stances. Boxers have more practical, natural stances and active footwork. Better for defense in real fighting, boxing is. And on, and on.

I just put this up as food for thought. No doubts you are effective at your style.

Kiai or kihap literally means "expulsion of air" If you don't breathe, you die.